Justice Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

[Kelly W. Sundberg, Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you again to speak on bail and sentencing reform as presented in Bill C-14.

By way of a brief context, I'm a professor of criminology at Mount Royal University. My work has long focused on border security, immigration enforcement and transnational crime, alongside scholarship on policing, public safety and security. Prior to academia, I served for over 15 years in federal border security and immigration enforcement, including in advisory roles with the federal government.

To begin, I want to be clear that I support Bill C-14. In my assessment, it is measured, legally cautious and respectful of judicial independence, while responding to the public's real concerns about repeat and violent offending and the credibility of our bail decision-making.

Canadians expect Parliament to ensure that people accused of serious violence, organized crime and repeat offending are carefully managed by the courts, balancing an accused's charter rights with the rights that Canadians have to live free from fear, intimidation and victimization.

I also want to acknowledge the testimony from this past October of British Columbia Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the Assembly of First Nations. He reminded us that bail and sentencing reform must not deepen inequalities or shift new burdens onto indigenous communities that already experience disproportionate harm. A credible public safety agenda must include sustained support for indigenous communities and indigenous-led and informed solutions.

I want to focus on one discrete issue that can be addressed in a narrow and defensible way.

Canada is one of the most immigration-dependent societies in the world. We have a large foreign-born population and, at any given time, a very large temporary resident population—students, workers and visitors living in our communities across our country. Recent federal reporting has placed the temporary resident population at roughly three million people.

When even a small fraction of foreign nationals are implicated in serious offending—terrorism-related activities, organized crime, extortion, violence, trafficking or exploitation—the harms are real, and the public expects a meaningful response at the earliest justice system decision point. In my belief, it's bail.

There is a human point to this. Many newcomers and first-generation Canadians come to Canada to escape violence, intimidation, corruption and organized crime. When those same threats follow them into Canada, it undermines confidence in both our justice system and our immigration system.

My recommendation is simple. Align bail law with Parliament's seriousness structure in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Specifically, I propose a narrowly tailored reverse onus provision so that when a foreign national is arrested and charged in a manner that, if convicted, would render them inadmissible under IRPA's provisions relating to security and terrorism, human or international rights violations, serious criminality or criminality, or organized criminality, the onus shifts, and they must show cause as to why they should be released.

Why does this matter at bail?

The first is attendance in court. Conditional status and conviction-linked inadmissibility consequences can materially affect flight risk, compliance and enforceability.

The second is public safety. These are Parliament's highest-concern categories of misconduct by non-citizens temporarily in our country.

The third is public confidence. Where Parliament has determined that certain conduct is fundamentally incompatible with remaining in Canada, Canadians reasonably expect bail decision-making to reflect that seriousness, while remaining fully compliant with fairness and due process.

To be crystal clear, this is not automatic detention. It is a narrow show cause mechanism that preserves full judicial discretion and requires the court to apply the disciplined analysis under subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code, with the onus structured appropriately for a small yet high-risk category.

In closing, Bill C-14 is a strong and necessary step forward. I believe the committee has an opportunity to strengthen it without overreaching by adding one carefully drafted reverse onus provision for foreign nationals in the IRPA sections 34 to 37 inadmissibility bands.

Again, to give effect to my earlier stated recommendations, I propose wording consistent with what I provided this committee in my written response last week—namely, that a new reverse onus subparagraph be added to paragraph 515(6)(a) of the Criminal Code. It would read, “that the accused is a foreign national, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and is charged with an offence such that, if convicted, the accused would be inadmissible to Canada under section 34, 35, 36 or 37 of that Act.” The reverse onus should apply there.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

I'm sorry for the stumble.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It happens. If you hadn't done it, I or somebody else would have done it. Don't apologize.

Mr. Múrias, I'll turn the floor over to you, sir, for up to five minutes.

[Tiago Murias, Criminal Lawyer, Ameur and Múrias INC, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

I am going to focus exclusively on the part concerning young offenders, that is, the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, since that is my area of expertise. I won't speak to the provisions related to the Criminal Code.

I work exclusively with young offenders and have done so for 14 years. That's my job, and I love it. I have obviously seen a major change over the past 14 years, not only in terms of delinquency, but also in terms of the profile of young people who end up in court.

I want to say that there are a number of positive things in the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I think it's an act that is starting to show its age; it came into force in 2003, and it has had no significant amendments since then. The proposed amendments are, on the whole, positive. There are many good things in the bill when it comes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act; although I believe there's room for improvement, as always. As long as work is being done on that act and on certain provisions that do need to be updated, I think it's possible to improve the act and ensure that it better reflects the act's principles.

One of the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, mentioned in the preamble and section 3, is that the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders are the best ways to protect the public in the long term. In 2007, the Supreme Court established that principle as a principle of fundamental justice, that is, a principle that is constitutionally protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, any legislative provisions must comply with the principle that rehabilitation and prevention measures are the best ways to reduce crime.

Not only is that legally and morally true, but it's also factually evident. It's known that quick, effective and intensive intervention is the best way to reduce the recidivism rate among young offenders. All the studies and meta-studies demonstrate that. We know that this is what works. Personally, I don't think this should be a political issue. It's important to move forward based on what the science shows. Relying on science is the right thing to do in many areas, and that's also the case when it comes to rehabilitation.

However, even though I think rehabilitation is a fundamental value, there's indeed a change in delinquency at the moment, in terms of the profile of offenders and the crime severity index. As the data show, there has been an increase in the severity of offences committed by teenagers, but it's important to consider that in the context of a general decline since the 2000s. There has been a huge decrease since the 2000s, but there has been a resurgence in recent years, both in terms of the prevalence of crime and in terms of the crime severity index and the rate of homicides committed by teenagers per 100,000 inhabitants.

For that reason, I think measures can be put in place. For example, the first thing to change would be the definition of “violent offence”. What's currently proposed doesn't seem to be the best approach, because causing bodily harm is already provided for in the act. However, adding firearm offences seems entirely appropriate to me. A list of firearm-related sections should be included; I'm particularly thinking of sections 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 102 of the Criminal Code. Those sections relate to firearms and should be included in the definition of “violent offence”, which allows for custody. That would prevent having to use an exceptional provision, such as paragraph 39(1)(d) of the act. Amending the definition of “violent offence” to include certain firearm offences would also give judges more discretion. That's fair, it's proportionate, and, above all, it reflects the reality we see in urban centres.

That brings me to my second proposal.

The two sentences—namely, intermittent custody, which is on weekends, and intensive rehabilitative custody—depend on the resources and programs provided for by the provincial director. I propose amending this section so that those programs are provided for in the act, without condition, as is the case for adults, for whom intermittent custody doesn't depend on special programs but exists in the Criminal Code. The same should be true for teenagers. It's a program that works, that delivers results and that, when it existed—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Múrias. I'll have to stop you there. You'll have an opportunity to answer some questions shortly.

Mr. Copeland, it's over to you for up to five minutes, please.

[Peter Copeland, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation.

Let me begin with a simple but important point. Canada's public safety issues are real, but bail is not the primary problem. The real issues are repeat violent offenders and the expanding reach of organized crime. We need to address organized crime and national security gaps in enforcement and prosecution, reduce excessive judicial discretion and pursue selective expansion of non-custodial sentencing options.

Over the past decade, we've seen a sustained increase in violent crime, heightened public concern about repeat and dangerous offenders and growing frustration with what appears to be inconsistent and lenient outcomes, but these causes aren't reducible to one factor.

They include Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly Jordan, which is a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by courts that ought to have been studied and enacted by Parliament for case timelines. It has forced speed at the expense of substance and resulted in thousands of stayed or withdrawn cases. Court backlogs and delay inflate remand populations, as has already been mentioned today, which actually hardens offenders. There is organized crime and national security-linked criminality, which our tools at present are poorly designed to address; the striking down of hundreds of mandatory minimums without replacement architecture; and a sentencing framework that relies heavily on broad principles but offers little structured guidance, leaving room for too much discretion and unpredictability in the law as a result. Bail decisions sit downstream of all of this.

Bill C-14 responds to real public anxiety, particularly around repeat violent offending, and some of its sentencing amendments may help at the margins, but deterrence ultimately comes from consistency, predictability and certainty of enforcement and punishment, which are affected by many other things. If we just crack down on bail without fixing sentencing, prosecution practices and enforcement capacity, we don't get deterrence. We get more remand, more delay and less legitimacy.

We, in fact, saw this after Bill C-48's introduction. Excessive reliance on pretrial detention can worsen outcomes, with swelling remand populations and a pressure to plead out, and sentences, if they get to that stage, can get effectively commuted by time served in these dysfunctional conditions.

One of the core problems in our criminal law is that the principles and purposes structure affords too much discretion, which undermines predictability and deterrence. It's governed by broad objectives and principles in section 718 and the balancing exercises between these principles that produce variation across courts. Past sentencing commissions in Canada have warned about this problem and examined U.K.-style sentencing guidelines—not rigid grids but structured ranges and offence-specific guidance—but these were not ultimately adopted, so we have too much unpredictability, weak denunciation for serious crime and diminished public confidence as a result.

If Parliament wants to address violent repeat offending effectively, I would suggest four priorities.

First is organized crime and national security. Our definition of organized crime is too narrow and difficult to prove. Canada should move toward a pattern-based framework similar to U.S.-style RICO tools. We should create targeted exemptions for Stinchcombe disclosure rules and Jordan case timelines when organized crime and national security thresholds are in play. These are tools our allies have, which makes Canada a target for organized crime and foreign state actors that's being actively exploited. This is evident in the rising number of organized crime groups operating here.

Second, we need to reduce excess discretion in sentencing dangerous offenders. If Canada will not adopt sentencing guidelines, then Parliament should at least rebalance section 718's application for serious repeat and violent offences and make clear that denunciation and deterrence must be given primary consideration for more types of charges. This is language that Parliament has used before, and somewhat in this bill, for other offence categories.

Third, prosecution policy matters. Hybrid offences enable Crown discretion, and they're found throughout the Criminal Code. That could be maintained but tightened by working with the provinces to amend both the federal and provincial Crown prosecution manuals to establish a default presumption of indictment for serious repeat and violent offences.

Fourth, expand serious non-custodial sentencing options. Canada lacks robust long-term non-custodial options that sit between probation and prison. Well-designed, in-community sentences—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'll have to ask you to wrap up quickly, Mr. Copeland, please.

[Peter Copeland]

—can support rehabilitation and reintegration and can be highly restrictive and deterrent when properly supervised.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the first six-minute round, starting with Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Copeland, welcome.

I read your recent article in the National Post: “Targeted mandatory minimums required to counter activist judges”. You write that “a combination of mandatory minimums and stronger sentences for severe crimes and high-risk offenders are justified.” Is that correct?

[Peter Copeland]

Yes, I did write that. I think it's one tool in the tool kit, as it removes judicial discretion. That is one of the issues that is resulting in a too-lenient prosecution system.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I'm not sure if you had a chance to really study the bill that is presently before the committee. It's amending the Criminal Code on bail and sentencing, but there really isn't much sentencing being amended by this bill specifically.

While some schemes of the Criminal Code are being changed with respect to sentencing, the only adjustment in terms of penalties appears when it comes to contempt of justice. That is the only time sentencing is addressed in Bill C-14, which Conservatives find remarkable...in how deficient this bill is.

Are you disappointed that we haven't seen much sentencing reform in Bill C-14, Mr. Copeland?

[Peter Copeland]

Yes, and I have written about this before. Certainly bail is an issue and it needs to be addressed, but when we focus just on bail through the creation of reverse onuses, you can end up swelling the remand population and not affecting sentencing. As I've indicated in a few of provided suggestions, we can remove judicial discretion while maintaining it in appropriate ways to make sentencing more predictable and effective.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

It's important to note that sentences prescribed by the Criminal Code or handed down by the judiciary often end up not being the sentences served by those convicted and sentenced to those sentences, in that there's pretrial custody time, which is often two-for-one and these days in some cases three-for-one. You also have essentially an automatic eligibility for parole after a third of a sentence.

I have to tell you that I'm quite disappointed. It appears as if the government missed an opportunity on sentencing here.

[Peter Copeland]

Yes, I would agree. I think the bill should be amended.

The government has shown some willingness to do this with the border security bill, where they took out lawful access, but they're studying that further and they're going to move forward with it.

I suggest that significant amendments to the sentencing regime be undertaken. Again, a significant one would be to change, for a whole host of serious dangerous offences, the prioritization of the principles, not just tweaking a few, as they've done here.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

We talk a lot about mandatory minimum sentences. No doubt you followed the Supreme Court in Senneville a couple of months ago, which struck down a mandatory minimum sentence in a case involving access to and distribution of child pornography—a horrendous set of facts with horrendous materials in the possession of the two accused. Apparently, a majority of the Supreme Court thought that a mandatory minimum sentence would be unconstitutional here. That would be one year for possession or access. We see nothing on that in Bill C-14.

We now see Bill C-16, which I anticipate will come to this committee at some point as well. In that respect, we see the government watering down the mandatory minimum sentencing provision, in that they propose a safety valve where there would be automatic litigation of the constitutional principle that a punishment cannot be cruel and unusual every single time and would allow a judge discretion not to apply the mandatory minimum. How do you feel about that?

[Peter Copeland]

First of all, the case was decided upon the use of a reasonable hypothetical scenario, which were facts not before the court. I think that points to a larger issue here: that to properly bring mandatory minimums into the law, you have to account for the presence of the charter and the philosophy that's prevalent among large numbers of judges on the bench, which I think leaves room for improvement.

There are other options to introduce mandatory minimums but that have narrower types of exemptions. There are a number of factors you could stipulate, wherein a judge could enact discretion that doesn't go as far as what's being put forward here. In fact, many other jurisdictions have these in place. I would like to see—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Peter Copeland]

—mandatory minimums of that nature, but with narrow exemptions.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Copeland, if I may, very quickly, I want to go to Mr. Sundberg.

I see your proposal for having a reverse onus in cases to which, for folks at home, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act applies, but can we talk about sentencing?

If someone is convicted of a serious crime, or of a crime, we now see situations where judges prescribe more lenient sentences so as not to affect the immigration status of a particular accused. I find that preposterous. I would like to do the opposite and look potentially at revoking a temporary stay by a convicted criminal who is not a resident of Canada. In fact—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That is all your time, Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

—that is what Michelle Rempel Garner is proposing in Bill C-220.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Baber, that's all your time.

I'll give time just for a quick answer.

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

Very quickly, I think the proposals that have been discussed are important. My effort is to align the spirit, if you will, of IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, where Parliament has made, in my view, some good decisions on what is inadmissible for certain classes of individuals who are not Canadian citizens. Having an incongruence between how the courts deal with a matter of criminality and how the immigration program deals with a matter of criminality.... When we see this conflict where justices are purposely reducing sentences to ensure that someone doesn't fall into the IRPA, in my view, it's problematic. In many respects, it's somewhat schizophrenic, where we have one side—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Kelly W. Sundberg]

—of the legislation and the IRPA saying one thing, and we see the Criminal Code saying another thing. I think we need to bring in alignment.